The correct answer is A. "Individuals must have knowledge of their rights."
The quote is actually referring to the Supreme Court case of Miranda vs. Arizona, not Marbury vs. Madison. This court cases refers to a man who was interrogated by police and ended up confessing to a crime after several hours of deliberation. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence received by the police was inadmissible because of the way they forced Miranda to admit and the fact that he did not know his rights as a citizen.
This resulted in the reading of the "Miranda" rights to citizens as they are being arrested.
Chief Justice John Marshall stated last 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
It implies that the judicial department applies the law and the understanding and interpretation therein would still be based on the designated person. If soever, the interpreter or representative in the judicial department would make any conflict with the intent, process, actual application of the law (the two representation of law), the courts would be the end to finalize the decision.
Answer:
were immune to it while Natives Americans were not
Explanation:
it makes sense
More white land owning men lived there, and they were more likely to vote.
